MB9-04269

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-04269 MB9-04270 / MB9-04271 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision ? Motifs et décision Persons who are the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personnes en cause Appeal considered / heard at Ottawa, Ontario Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision January 13, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Nicole Ladouceur Tribunal Counsel for the persons who are the subject of the appeal Cristian Roa-Riveros Conseil des personnes en cause Designated representative XXXX XXXX XXXX Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal appellant, and her two minor children, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, the associate appellants, all citizens of Haiti, are appealing the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dated February 14, 2019. They allege that the RPD's risk analysis is incomplete and unreasonable. [2] The principal appellant was appointed as the designated representative of her two minor children, XXXX and XXXX XXXX. Their allegations are based on the principal appellant's written account. [3] Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeals. BACKGROUND [4] According to her Basis of Claim Form (BOC Form),1 the principal appellant and her husband were the XXXX of a XXXX XXXX XXXX in Haiti. She was also a XXXX and XXXX until her departure in 2017. [5] Following repeated thefts and looting by criminals in 2013, and in 2015-17, the appellant left Haiti with her two children in XXXX 2017. Her husband is still living there and continues to manage their XXXX. Should she return to Haiti, she fears that these criminals will target her again, as she will be perceived to be a woman with money and assets because she XXXX the XXXX. [6] In its decision, the RPD found that the appellant was credible. However, it rejected her refugee protection claim because it concluded that the crimes committed by the criminals are linked to the security situation in Haiti and that the risk faced by the appellant is no different from that faced by some or all of the Haitian population. [7] The principal appellant submits that the RPD failed to conduct, under section 96 of the IRPA, a thorough analysis of her membership in the particular social group of Haitian women. She is of the opinion that the documentary evidence2 is consistent in stating that violence against women is widespread in Haiti and is a chronic and systemic problem. [8] The principal appellant also argues that the RPD erred in its analysis of the risks within the meaning of paragraph 97(1)(b) in concluding that the personal risk faced by the appellant is also a generalized risk. The appellant is of the opinion that this conclusion is contradictory and unreasonable. [9] She is therefore asking the RAD to allow their appeal, grant a de novo hearing before a differently constituted panel and make any other order it deems fair and equitable. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL [10] The RAD reviews RPD decisions, applying the correctness standard of review3 after conducting its own assessment of the record. The exception to this rule arises when the RPD enjoyed a particular advantage in making findings that require an assessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears. [11] In this case, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not enjoy a meaningful advantage in reaching any of its conclusions. I therefore applied only the correctness standard. ANALYSIS [12] Having conducted my own assessment of the evidence on the record, including listening to the recording of the RPD hearing, I am of the opinion that the appellant's arguments are unfounded and that the RPD's decision is correct. My reasons are as follows. Generalized risk [13] The RPD was correct to conclude that the principal appellant faced a personal risk as a victim of crime because of the security situation in Haiti but that the risk she faces is no different than the risk generally faced by the entire population. [14] In her memorandum, the appellant argues that the RPD's conclusion is contradictory, that a personal risk cannot also be a generalized risk. With all due respect, I do not share her view in this case. I am of the opinion that the RPD was correct to conclude that the appellant faced a personal risk related to the existing criminal activity but that all Haitians are generally exposed to that same criminal activity. [15] At the hearing, the principal appellant explained that she personally witnessed a robbery at her XXXX in XXXX 2015, that the criminals pointed a weapon at her, and that she was shaken and distressed by it. She continued to work at the XXXX for two years. The RPD concluded that the appellant faced a personal risk. [16] However, the risk analysis goes further. The RPD asked the appellant whether, if she were to return to Haiti, the risk she would face would be different from that faced by other Haitians living in the country.4 The appellant responded that she was afraid, that gangs attacked people for various reasons, including because they were perceived to be rich, and that kidnappings were common. She stated that she did not know the thieves or whether the same group was involved each time. [17] Furthermore, the principal appellant did not submit any evidence that she or her two daughters were personally targeted. The evidence shows that after she left Haiti, the XXXX was broken into again on XXXX XXXX, 2017, and some items were stolen. [18] This testimony led the RPD to conclude that the risk faced by the appellant was the same as that faced by other citizens of her country in similar circumstances and was the result of the security situation in Haiti. The RPD's conclusion contains no contradictions. Its decision is correct. Gender-based fear [19] The RPD was correct to conclude that the principal appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution by reason of her gender should she return to Haiti. [20] In her appeal memorandum, the appellant submits that the RPD's analysis under section 96 is superficial and cites documentary evidence to the effect that violence against women is widespread in Haiti and is a chronic and systemic problem.5 [21] Documentary evidence on country conditions does not in itself establish a well-founded fear of persecution.6 The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate a connection between the documentary evidence on the problematic situations in her country and her personal situation. [22] I listened carefully to the recording of the RPD hearing and read the reasons for its decision. In my opinion, the RPD thoroughly analyzed the appellant's situation, including the fact that her husband is present, and applied the Chairperson's Guideline 4.7 [23] The appellant testified that the last violent incident occurred in 2016; however, she did not leave the country until 2017. She is married, educated and stated that she has XXXX in a few XXXX without experiencing any problems. She can therefore choose to XXXX in another XXXX. [24] The evidence does not reveal that she has any financial difficulties. Her husband is managing the XXXX in the principal appellant's absence. [25] At the hearing, the appellant indicated that she and her daughters went on holidays each year outside Haiti.8 Moreover, the decision to come to Canada and claim refugee protection here was apparently made during a vacation in the United States. [26] As for her daughters' safety, she testified that her husband had found a way to get them to and from school with another XXXX and family friend. [27] In this case, I am of the opinion that the RPD did not err in concluding that the appellant and her two daughters do not have the profiles of vulnerable women living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Haiti, who risk being assaulted, sexually or otherwise, by reason of their gender. [28] For all these reasons, and having examined all the evidence and conducted my own independent assessment of the record, I am of the opinion that the principal appellant has failed to establish that the RPD's decision was erroneous. The RPD's decision took into account all the applicable jurisprudential principles and all the evidence on the record. CONCLUSION [29] I confirm the RPD's determination that the principal appellant and her two minor children are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA. [30] The appeals are dismissed. (Signed) Nicole Ladouceur Nicole Ladouceur January 13, 2020 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) record, Document 2. Page 16. 2 National Documentation Package (NDP), Haiti, Tab 5.3: Violence against women, including sexual violence; state protection and support services (2012-June 2016). 3 Huruglica v. Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 93, para. 53. 4 Recording of the RPD hearing, January 23, 2019, at approximately 1:52:29. 5 NDP, Haiti, Tab 5.3: Violence against women, including sexual violence; state protection and support services (2012-June 2016). 6 Morales v. Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1116, para. 31. 7 Chairperson's Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa, November 13, 1996. 8 Recording of the RPD hearing, January 23, 2019, at approximately 1:13:00. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB9-04269 MB9-04270 / MB9-04271 RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (April 4, 2019) Disponible en français